Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Cardiol. Aug 26, 2017; 9(8): 693-701
Published online Aug 26, 2017. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v9.i8.693
Table 3 Examples of cases when physical examination “trumped” echocardiography or echocardiography presented misleading data
CaseAge (yr)LesionClinical GradientDOPP GradientComment
16.7Supravalvar PS s/p repair of TOF with homograft from RV to PA6324Homograft poorly visualized; tricuspid regurgitation jet predicted a systolic RV pressure of 66 mmHg plus the right atrial v-wave, so the PS gradient was significantly underestimated by DOPP
26.9VSD, s/p repair of TOF7066Prior echocardiograms did not visualize VSD; exam led to finding of a tiny residual VSD
310.8VSD8863Poor DOPP incident angle predicted pulmonary hypertension
40.005VSD68NAVSD was so tiny and anterior, a jet could not be obtained for a DOPP gradient
54.3VSD7361BP 104/50; poor DOPP incident angle predicted pulmonary hypertension
60.01VSD8848Technician obtained initial VSD DOPP gradient of 28 mmHg; exam prompted a search for a better DOPP angle
72.8VSD8355Poor DOPP incident angle predicted pulmonary hypertension; tricuspid regurgitation jet predicted normal PA pressures
85.5VSD, s/p repair9862Poor DOPP incident angle predicted pulmonary hypertension; tricuspid and pulmonary regurgitation jets predicted normal PA pressures
93.8VSD7353Poor DOPP incident angle predicted pulmonary hypertension; tricuspid regurgitation jet predicted normal PA pressures
1015.4VSD, Shone’s complex with minimal LV outflow tract obstruction9363Poor DOPP incident angle predicted pulmonary hypertension
1115.7VSD11873Poor DOPP incident angle predicted pulmonary hypertension, even though the VSD was 2.8 mm in diameter; tricuspid and pulmonary regurgitation jets predicted normal PA pressures